alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021028EN.01004402.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — Impera v EUIPO — Euro Games Technology (Flaming Forties)

(Case T-875/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Flaming Forties - Earlier national figurative mark 40 FLAMING FRUITS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 28/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Impera GmbH (Steinhaus, Austria) (represented by: C. Straberger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: I. Lecheva, J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Euro Games Technology Ltd (Vranya-Lozen-Triugulnika, Bulgaria) (represented by: K. Manev, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2019 (Case R 2321/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Euro Games Technology and Impera.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Impera GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Impera GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.

---
Motion Granted; Abatement Order filed March 21, 2013. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00796-CR

LISA MICHELLE ESTRADA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________

NO. 14-12-00797-CR

EX PARTE LISA MICHELLE ESTRADA

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1296827 & 1296827-A

ABATEMENT ORDER

In the appeal docketed under number 14-12-00796-CR, appellant appeals from the 

order adjudicating her guilt for theft and sentencing her to confinement for six months in 

state jail. In the appeal docketed under number 14-12-00797-CR, she appeals from the 

denial of her pre-trial application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Texas Code of 

Criminal Procedure article 11.072. See Kniatt v. State, 206 S.W.3d 657, 663-64 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2006) (reaffirming rule that jurisdiction is established at the time the writ is 

filed and is not defeated by subsequent adjudication of guilt).
Appellant has filed a motion to abate the appeal for supplementation of the record. 

In the pre-trial writ application, appellant alleged that her plea of guilty was involuntary 

because her trial counsel was ineffective. She also alleged that the State had failed to 

disclose exculpatory evidence in the form of a police statement from witness Melanie 

Thomas. 

At the writ hearing, even though the trial court summarily denied the writ as 

frivolous, the court ordered: “In an abundance of caution, I’m going to go ahead and 

order that the State obtain a copy of that witness statement so that it can be made a part of 

this record for purposes of an appeal, if that’s what you choose to do.” Appellant asserts 

that to date, the witness statement has not been made part of the record.

Accordingly, we GRANT appellant’s motion and order these appeals ABATED 

for supplementation of the record. We ORDER counsel for the State to see that the 

witness statement by Melanie Thomas is made a part of the record and a supplemental 

clerk’s record containing the statement is filed with the clerk of this court in the habeas 

appeal docketed under number 14-12-00797-CR on or before April 26, 2013. 

The appeals are abated, treated as closed cases, and removed from this court’s 

active docket. The appeals will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the 

supplemental clerk’s record is filed in this court. The court will also consider an 

appropriate motion to reinstate the appeals filed by either party, or the court may reinstate 

the appeals on its own motion. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Boyce and Donovan.

2
# C_2020095EN.01001601.xml

| 23.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 12 December 2019 — Alpha Trading SpA unipersonale v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Others

(Case C-916/19)

(2020/C 95/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alpha Trading SpA unipersonale

Defendant: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Questions referred

In the view of the Court of Justice of the European Union — in the light of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) of 22 March 1999, as amended, Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (2) of 21 April 2004, and any further relevant provisions of [EU] law — does the definition of State aid, as such subject to an obligation of prior notification to the European Commission, cover a secondary regulatory instrument such as the regulation adopted by means of Ministerial Decree No 37/2015 — which is being challenged in these proceedings — which, in direct enforcement of judgments of the Council of State requiring the annulment in part of the previous regulations already notified to the Commission, has retroactively affected the procedures for application of the reduced excise duty on biodiesel by retroactively amending the criteria for distribution of the benefit thereof among the applicant companies without extending the duration of the programme of tax concessions?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 140, p. 1).

---
Exhibit 32.1

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification is being filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This certification is
included  solely for the purpose of complying with the provisions of Section 906
of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act and is not to be  used  for any  other  purpose.  In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Rub A Dub Soap,
Inc. for the year ended May 31, 2006, I, Kevin B. Halter,  Jr., hereby certifies
in my capacity as an officer of Rub A Dub Soap, Inc. that to my knowledge:

         1. The Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB of Rub A Dub Soap,  Inc.  for the
year ended May 31, 2006,  fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2. The information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Rub
A Dub Soap,  Inc.  for the year  ended May 31,  2005,  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of Rub A
Dub Soap, Inc.

Date:    August 15, 2006                /s/ Kevin B. Halter, Jr.
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Kevin B. Halter, Jr., President and Chief
                                       Executive Officer
Exhibit
10.5c
 
 AMENDMENTS
TO THE
 AMENDED
AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
 GEORGE
W. HALIGOWSKI, IMPERIAL CAPITAL BANCORP, INC.
 AND
IMPERIAL CAPITAL BANK
 TO
COMPLY WITH INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 409A
 
 WHEREAS,
on February 24, 2006, George W. Haligowski entered into an amended and restated
employment agreement with Imperial Capital Bancorp, Inc. (formerly known as ITLA
Capital Corporation) and Imperial Capital Bank (the “Agreement”);
and
  WHEREAS,
the Agreement includes provisions that provide for deferred compensation and
therefore must be amended to comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue
Code and the regulations and guidance of general applicability issued
thereunder; and
  WHEREAS,
the Agreement may be amended by a writing signed by the parties to the
Agreement.
  NOW,
THEREFORE, the foregoing considered, it is agreed as follows:
  That
effective as of January 1, 2005, the Agreement is amended to include the
Appendix A, which is attached hereto and included herein by this
reference.
  IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed, this 31st day of
December, 2008, effective as of January 1, 2005.
   IMPERIAL
CAPITAL BANCORP, INC.
  By:            /s/ Jeffrey L.
Lipscomb
  IMPERIAL
CAPITAL BANK
  By:            /s/ Jeffrey L.
Lipscomb
  GEORGE W.
HALIGOWSKI
 
 By:           /s/ George W.
Haligowski
  -1-
  APPENDIX
A
  Provisions
Relating to Code Section 409A
  1.  Timing of Annual Incentive
Plan and Bonus Payments.
  Annual
Incentive Compensation Plan and bonus payments provided for under Paragraph 4(c)
of the Agreement shall be paid no later than 21⁄2 months after the end of the year
in which the Executive obtains a legally binding right to such
payments.
  2. Pre-Change in Control
Involuntary Termination Payments under Paragraph 7(a)(ii)
  The lump
sum election under Paragraph 7(a)(ii) of the Agreement is eliminated.
Accordingly, Paragraph 7(a)(ii) shall read as follows:
  (ii) pay
to the Executive a single lump sum payment equal to the sum of the monthly
payments the Executive would receive if he were paid monthly amounts over the
remaining term of this Agreement equal to (A) one-twelfth of his Base Salary at
the highest annual rate in effect during the three years prior to the Date of
Termination and (B) one-twelfth of the average annual amount of cash bonus and
cash incentive compensation of the Executive, based on the average of the
amounts of such compensation earned by the Executive for the two full fiscal
years preceding the Date of Termination; and
  3.  Change in Control
Involuntary Termination Payments under Paragraph 7(b)
  The
election under Paragraph 7(b) of the Agreement (whereunder the Executive may
receive certain alternative benefits in exchange for a reduction in his lump sum
benefit) shall be limited or eliminated to the extent necessary to comply with
Section 409A.
  -2-
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Donathan Wayne HADDEN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-6907.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.

Decided: Jan. 15, 2009.

*824Donathan Wayne Hadden, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Donathan Wayne Hadden seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006) motion and denying his subsequent motion to alter or amend judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hadden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
# C_2021502EN.01004202.xml

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/42

---

Order of the General Court of 5 October 2021 — Northgate and Northgate Europe v Commission

(Case T-719/19) (1)

(2021/C 502/64)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.

---
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Minera Andes Inc. (the
Corporation), on Form 10-QSB for the three month period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bonnie L. Kuhn, Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                   |  |                                      
|------------------ |  | ----------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                   |  | MINERA ANDES INC.
|                   |  |                  
|Date: May 14, 2004 |  | By:               |  | /s/ Bonnie L. Kuhn                   
|                   |  |                   |  | Bonnie L. Kuhn                       
|                   |  |                   |  | Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
#### Christina SANCHEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Suzette Z. TORRES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-16651.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed July 1, 2011.

Christina Sanchez, San Jose, CA, pro se.

*468Lucas E. Gilmore, Steyer, Lowenthal, Boodrookas, Alvarez & Smith, San Francisco, CA, Jessica Carolyn Grannis, Esquire, Edward Egan Smith, Esquire, Steyer, Lowenthal, Boodrookas, Alvarez & Smith, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Christina Sanchez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal for failure to serve. *Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan),*253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action as to defendants who had not voluntarily appeared because Sanchez failed to provide proofs of service either within 120 days of filing her complaint or in the period specified in the district court’s order, or to demonstrate good cause for her failure to do so. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (requiring service within 120 days after the complaint is filed, or within a time period specified by court order); *In re Sheehan,*253 F.3d at 512 (discussing good cause standard); *see also Wong v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.,*410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir.2005) (courts have authority to set and enforce deadlines to foster the efficient resolution of cases).

Contrary to Sanchez’s contention, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Sanchez’s third request for an extension of time to file a third amended complaint. *See Chodos v. West Publ’g Co.,*292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir.2002) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that the district court’s discretion is particularly broad when it has already granted leave to amend).

Sanchez’s motion for judicial notice is denied.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*469ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EX-10.6






EXHIBIT 10.6




SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION

2006 GLOBAL EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN




WHEREAS, Boston Scientific Corporation (the “Company”) has established and maintains the
Boston Scientific Corporation 2006 Global Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the “Plan”); and



WHEREAS, the Plan has been amended from time to time and further amendment of the Plan now is
considered desirable to comply with recent changes to the law;



NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that by virtue and in exercise of the power reserved to the
Board of Directors of the Company by Section 5 of the Plan, and pursuant to the authority delegated
to certain officers of the Company by resolution of its Board of Directors, the Plan be and it is
hereby amended, effective for the Offering Period beginning January 1, 2010, by adding the
following sentence as the last sentence of Section 8.2(d) of the Plan:



“In addition, an Eligible Employee may not purchase Stock pursuant to an Option
granted under the Plan in excess of 5,000 shares per Offering Period.”



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be executed by its duly
authorized officers, this        day of December, 2009.




	 	 	 	BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION






By:


Its:




	 	 	ATTEST:





By:


Its:
# C_2019432EN.01005301.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/53

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — MSI Svetovanje v EUIPO — Industrial Farmaceutica Cantabria (nume)

(Case T-41/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark nume - Earlier EU word mark numederm - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 432/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MSI Svetovanje, marketing, d.o.o. (Vrhnika, Slovenia) (represented by: M. Maček, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Kompari and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Industrial Farmaceutica Cantabria, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2018 (Case R 722/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Industrial Farmaceutica Cantabria and Nutrismart d.o.o.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders MSI Svetovanje, marketing, d.o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders MSI Svetovanje, marketing, d.o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 25.3.2019.

---
# C_2020390EN.01003601.xml

| 16.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 390/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 390/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Huevos Herrera Mejías v EUIPO — Montesierra (MontiSierra HUEVOS CON SABOR A CAMPO)

(Case T-737/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark MontiSierra HUEVOS CON SABOR A CAMPO - Earlier EU and national word marks MONTESIERRA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity between goods - Similarity between signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2020/C 390/51)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Huevos Herrera Mejías, SL (Torre Alháquime, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Montesierra, SA (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2019 (Case R 2021/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Montesierra and Huevos Herrera Mejías.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Huevos Herrera Mejías, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Huevos Herrera Mejías, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.

---
Second Amendment to the Amended & Restated Employment Agreement




 Exhibit 10.17 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of the 24th day of February, 2009 (the “Effective Date”), by and between
Spectrum Brands, Inc. (the “Company”) and David R. Lumley (the “Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company
and the Executive previously entered into that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated January 16, 2007 (the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish to amend certain provisions of the Agreement in recognition of the Executive’s past services to the Company, new responsibilities and the importance
to the future success of the Company of the Executive’s continued services; and 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the premises and mutual agreements contained herein (promises that include benefits to which the Executive would not otherwise be entitled), and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
the Company and the Executive hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Capitalized Terms not defined herein shall have the meanings given those terms in
the Agreement. 
 2. As of the Effective Date, Executive’s Base Salary was Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000) per annum (the
“Existing Base Salary Amount”). For the period from March 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009 (the “Temporary Reduction Period”), Executive’s Base Salary shall be Five Hundred and Seventy Thousand Dollars ($570,000)
per annum. As of January 1, 2010, Executive’s Base Salary shall return to the Existing Base Salary Amount. Notwithstanding this temporary reduction in Base Salary, for purposes of calculating any Bonus or other incentive plan amounts or
any other benefit specified in the Employment Agreement or any other agreement between the Company and the Executive, including, without limitation, any severance benefits included therein, earned during the Temporary Reduction Period the Existing
Base Salary Amount shall be used as the Base Salary. 
 3. Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect,
and the execution of this Amendment shall not affect the rights of the Company or the Executive under the terms of the Agreement as in effect immediately prior to the Effective Date with respect to events occurring before the Effective Date.

 [Signature Page Follows] 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first
above written. 
  

			
	SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC
	
	 /s/ Kent J. Hussey

	 By:
	 	Kent J. Hussey, Chief Executive Officer


  

			
	EXECUTIVE:
	
	 /s/ David R. Lumley

	 Name:
	 	David R. Lumley